hamletAct1Scene4: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
m (Conversion script moved page HamletAct1Scene4 to hamletAct1Scene4: Converting page titles to lowercase)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:


''denci lumci tutci sevzi bo sabji''
Angels and ministers of grace defend us!


(That's not cutting the Gordian knot, that's running it through a paper shredder!)
Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damned,


----
Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell,


Solved problem; see [[jbocre: The Book|The Book]], Chapter 16, example 5.7:
Be thy intents wicked or charitable,


*ro da poi me ma'a zo'u: da bilga lenu bevri le denci lumci tutci po da
Thou com'st in such a questionable shape


reducing to
That I will speak to thee. I'll call thee Hamlet,


*ro da po'u ma'a bilga lenu bevri le da denci lumci tutci
King, Father, royal Dane. O, answer me!


but not
Let me not burst in ignorance; but tell


*ro ma'a bilga lenu bevri le ma'a denci lumci tutci
Why thy canonized bones, hearsed in death,


and not
Have burst their cerements; why the sepulcher


*ro ma'a bilga lenu bevri le ri denci lumci tutci
Wherein we saw thee quietly inurned


-- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]
Hath oped his ponderous and marble jaws


''I disagree. I think those last two are a nice and concise way of saying what we want. In addition, you can add:''
To cast thee up again. What may this mean,


* ''ro ma'a bilga le nu bevri le vo'a denci lumci tutci''
That thou, dead corpse, againin complete steel,


-- [[jbocre: Adam|Adam]]
Revisits thus the glimpses of the moon,


And here we come to the crux of the problem. Does an anaphor repeat its antecedent's number? I don't see how it can't. And it's not the toothbrush ''pe ro ma'a'' -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]].
Making night hideous, and we fools of nature


''Why should it repeat the number? It works just like "da":''
So horridly to shake our dispostiion


* ''ro da cu bilga le nu bevri le da tutci''
With thoughts beyond th reaches of our souls?
* ''ro ma'a cu bilga le nu bevri le vo'a tutci''


''I have no idea what kind of distinction you're trying to make between "le denci lumci tutci pe mi" and "le denci lumci tutci po mi". I don't know about you, but '''I''' don't use other people's toothbrushes. -- Adam''
Say, why is this? Wherefore? What should we do?
 
* Ah, but Adam, you have to be explicit, and not hide behind ''vo'a''. Can you say ''ro ma'a cu bilga le nu bevri le '''ma'a''' tutci''? (You imply so in your first response.) And if not, and this means something different from ''ro ma'a cu bilga le nu bevri le '''vo'a''' tutci'', '''how''' is it different?
** Yes, ''ma'a'' would mean the same thing. I used ''vo'a'' because it's more general, and because there is a tiny possibility that I might be refering to a different ''ma'a'', but it's highly unlikely.
 
* If we start introducing real-life context into this, we give up on rigour. Plausibility would also allow us to drop all our terminators; that doesn't mean we should. You may not use other people's toothbrushes, but you should be able to ''say'' that you do. So that particular objection is bogus. (But the distinction I'm appealing to, in any case, isn't pe/po, it's mi/ma'a.)
** If there's no distinction to make (and there probably isn't in this case), then ''pe'' and ''po'' are equally correct. When there's a contrast, you can use ''pe'' and ''po'' (or you could use a paraphrase for ''po''). At any rate, there's no distinction as far as we can tell in this case, so there's no need to be over specific.
 
* Can ''le mi'o panzi'' be the offspring of us, jointly, or our respective offspring, or both depending on context? I guess I'm interpreting ''mi'o'' as only ''mi joi do''. I'm reticent, in any case, to believe that ''mi'o'' (or for that matter ''vo'a'') operates just like ''da'', and drops the quantification on anaphoric use.
** ''mi'o'' can be either ''mi joi do'' or ''mi .e do'' (to disambiguate I would say quantify it with ''piro'' or ''ro'', respectively). So let's say that there are two referents of the sumti (''a'' and ''b''). With ''mi joi do'': Both ''a'' and ''b'' are offspring of both of us jointly. With ''mi .e do'': More complicated, but I think it means that:  ''a'' is the offspring of ''mi'' and  ''a'' is the offspring of ''do'' and  ''b'' is the offspring of ''mi'' and  ''b'' is the offspring of ''do''.  Of course, in this case there's not much of a difference between being an offspring both ''x'' and ''y'' individually as opposed to jointly, but there would be differences in other cases.
 
* This is probably messy enough to take to the list, no? -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]
** If you want, but I think we recently agreed there that you're wrong about the ''vo'a'' issue. :)
 
** *smile* Different ''vo'a'' issue, of course, and I was really only doing devil's advocate anyway...
 
* ''le mi'o panzi''
** First, I protest your malglico use of an implicit ''pe''. If you mean ''le panzi be mi'o'', '''please''' say that.
 
***''*shrug* To my mind, le mi'o panzi is completely and utterly the same thing as le panzi pe mi'o, so just assume I said that.''
**** I meant using '''pe''' (implicit or not) instead of '''be''' when you mean '''be'''.
 
----
 
* ei ro da po'u ma'a bevri le da denci lumci burcu
 
''''''
 
* ''ro ma'a goi ko'a bevri lo ko'a denci lumci tutci'' (ignoring the ''bilga'' because I can't be bothered to look up the place structure) --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]
** ''What does assigning a ko'a add? --Adam''
 
** ''ko'a'' is assigned separately to each member of ma'a. In contrast, an ordinary anaphoric reference with ''ro ma'a'' as antecedent will requantifiy over the members of ''ma'a'' (according to xorxes and me).
*** But you didn't requantify ''ko'a''. ''ro ko'a'' would requantify over the members of ''ko'a'' also.

Latest revision as of 08:16, 30 June 2014

Angels and ministers of grace defend us!

Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damned,

Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell,

Be thy intents wicked or charitable,

Thou com'st in such a questionable shape

That I will speak to thee. I'll call thee Hamlet,

King, Father, royal Dane. O, answer me!

Let me not burst in ignorance; but tell

Why thy canonized bones, hearsed in death,

Have burst their cerements; why the sepulcher

Wherein we saw thee quietly inurned

Hath oped his ponderous and marble jaws

To cast thee up again. What may this mean,

That thou, dead corpse, againin complete steel,

Revisits thus the glimpses of the moon,

Making night hideous, and we fools of nature

So horridly to shake our dispostiion

With thoughts beyond th reaches of our souls?

Say, why is this? Wherefore? What should we do?